jpost.com
Prenuptial Agreements Combat Get Refusal in Israel
In Israel, a new prenuptial agreement, the "Agreement for Mutual Respect," seeks to prevent get refusal, protecting both spouses from forced marriage by ensuring fair divorce processes under Jewish law, combating the phenomenon of agunot (chained wives).
- What is the primary legal challenge faced by individuals seeking divorce under Jewish law in Israel, and how do prenuptial agreements aim to address it?
- In Israel, Jewish law requires both spouses' consent for divorce. A spouse refusing to grant a "get" (Jewish divorce) can trap the other in a forced marriage. Prenuptial agreements, like the "Agreement for Mutual Respect," aim to prevent this by outlining divorce procedures.
- How does the "Agreement for Mutual Respect" differ from a traditional prenuptial agreement, and what specific mechanisms does it employ to prevent get refusal?
- The "Agreement for Mutual Respect" addresses the issue of "agunot" (chained wives) in Israel. By legally mandating fair divorce processes, it counters the power imbalance where one spouse can use get refusal for coercion. This agreement protects both parties' freedom and dignity.
- What are the potential long-term societal impacts of making agreements such as the "Agreement for Mutual Respect" mandatory for all Jewish marriages in Israel?
- Widespread adoption of prenuptial agreements like the "Agreement for Mutual Respect" could significantly reduce get refusal in Israel. Making such agreements mandatory would create a strong disincentive for using divorce as a tool for control, shifting social norms and improving the lives of those impacted by marital coercion.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language to frame get refusal as a grave injustice, emphasizing the negative consequences for women and the need for preventative measures. The headline and introduction strongly advocate for prenuptial agreements, shaping the reader's perception towards their necessity.
Language Bias
The article uses strong emotional language such as "nightmare," "weapon," "imprisonment," and "despicable," to evoke strong negative feelings towards get refusal. These loaded terms create a biased tone, influencing the reader's emotional response rather than presenting neutral information. More neutral alternatives would be: 'challenging situation,' 'difficult legal process,' 'unintended consequence,' and 'complex issue.'
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the potential for get refusal and the benefits of prenuptial agreements, but it omits discussion of alternative solutions or support systems available to those facing marital difficulties. It doesn't explore the perspectives of those who oppose such agreements or the potential drawbacks.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice as either signing a prenuptial agreement or facing the potential for get refusal. It doesn't acknowledge the possibility of successful marriages without such agreements, or explore the complexities of marital relationships.
Gender Bias
While the article advocates for protecting women from get refusal, it focuses primarily on the negative impacts on women. While mentioning both men and women, the language and examples used disproportionately highlight the vulnerability of women in these situations. A more balanced approach would acknowledge the potential for harm to both parties in a marital breakdown.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the issue of "get refusal," where a Jewish husband can prevent his wife from divorcing him, violating her rights and freedom. The promotion of prenuptial agreements ("Agreement for Mutual Respect") aims to mitigate this issue, ensuring equal rights and preventing gender-based discrimination in divorce proceedings. This directly contributes to gender equality by protecting women from potential abuse and coercion within marriage.